Found by coincidence on the net :
http://www.geocontext.org/publ/2010/04/ ... 3782221303
source of inspiration ?
by visentin » Fri Dec 03, 2010 8:11 am
by Day Hiker » Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:48 pm
by MoapaPk » Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:21 pm
mrchad9 wrote:Thanks MoapaPk, but now the route is in reverse, and for some reason it thinks the low point elevation is zero. But I least the highpoint is correct.
Maybe I will play around with it and see if I can splice the original and old one together in a way that will work.
by visentin » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:14 pm
by Jelf » Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:54 pm
by visentin » Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:26 pm
by MoapaPk » Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:38 pm
visentin wrote:http://www.summitpost.org/piz-pal-traverse/gpx-map/694125
The GPX route appears as flat !
by rgg » Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:27 pm
MoapaPk wrote:visentin wrote:http://www.summitpost.org/piz-pal-traverse/gpx-map/694125
The GPX route appears as flat !
The GPX file contains no elevation data. I'm guessing the file was created with a mapping program (not taken directly from an actual GPS), and the mapping program did not assign a elevation to each point. the file has trackpoints like:
<trkpt lat="46.374740000" lon="9.930140000">
<ele>0.000000</ele>
by MoapaPk » Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:07 pm
rgg wrote:
I had a close look at the elevation profile. It seems that wandermap has some trouble staying on the ridge. Sure, it's a knife edge, but even on the big central summit, the profile is incorrect. The two most noticeable errors are the drops in elevation just east of Piz Spinaz, and even more pronounced the unreal drop just east of Piz Palü East. Given these gross inaccuracies, I believe it's better that the altitudes are omitted in the exported GPX file.
Rob
by rgg » Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:01 pm
MoapaPk wrote:Google earth gives the option of picking a fine DEM, which in the USA and parts of Europe, is often very close to a 3x3 meter grid.
by visentin » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:39 pm
by Josh Lewis » Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:58 pm
by visentin » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:48 am
Josh Lewis wrote:That's an outrage! Have you tested it else where?
by Josh Lewis » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:09 pm
by Alpinist » Thu May 19, 2011 3:29 am
MoapaPk wrote:visentin wrote:http://www.summitpost.org/piz-pal-traverse/gpx-map/694125
The GPX route appears as flat !
The GPX file contains no elevation data. I'm guessing the file was created with a mapping program (not taken directly from an actual GPS), and the mapping program did not assign a elevation to each point. the file has trackpoints like:
<trkpt lat="46.374740000" lon="9.930140000">
<ele>0.000000</ele>
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests